22 October 2017

Given that politicians try to suck the last bit of blood out of taxpayer's working income it is repellent that the rich who can afford to relocate to tax havens get treated so leniently. It is high time that all payments to tax havens are charged a substantial (30%?) withholding tax that these tax tourists can then apply against any tax charge in their domicile.Sunday Times (Paywall)

21 October 2017

A few days ago a headmaster at a leading UK Private School said that he could fill all places with overseas students if he would wish to do so.

That he is not doing it may seem to be altruistic, but I guess the public backlash would be just to violent to contemplate.

But it is still remarkable how large the foreign contingent has become during the recent few years. Maybe this is due to excessive greed shown by headmasters and their 'trustees' (usually harmless bigwigs that eat from the headmasters's hand).

Is this not pure commercialism and would it not be appropriate to treat these 'Private' Schools as businesses for tax purposes?

The fees that are being charged are being pushed to astronomical levels due to the demand pressure from foreign student applications. How can one justify 15 or 20000 pounds per annum for non-boarders? Assuming class sizes of 20 and one teacher per class (pro rata), add minimal admin staff (no headmasters sitting idly in the office, pontificating, not doing any teaching at all), some costs for property (who needs five-star luxury, labs where students play around without learning a craft in the end) and one arrives at 100-120000 pounds per class, that results in about 5-6000 pounds per place.

18 October 2017

No wonder that inequality is rising - the rich, and even more so the super rich, can in effect 'privatise' their tax dollars by squirrelling their fortunes into 'foundations' and 'trusts' that prevent proper inheritance taxes to be applied. Can Soros' institute really be called a charity? Who decides what the money is spent on? Who manages the foundation/charity? Why can ordinary workers not apply the same to their pay-cheques? Maybe a foundation to care for the elderly (their ailing parents) or their pets? And then call themselves 'philantropists' as well?CNBC

17 October 2017

So our rulers have decreed to chop another bit of freedom away from us. Who has ever really been damaged by catcalls? If there is no damage (except imagined by some extreme 'feminists') there should be no law against it. And the process of how these 'laws' are decreed is deeply undemocratic, no vote, no qualified majority. Hitler/Stalin and Mao could live with this, so what is the problem? Ugly women feel discriminated against?Yahoo

16 October 2017

What should one read into the name of this organization? Do the 'Citizens' have any say? Who controls the money? What benefit do the performers enjoy? They may work for free or not, but in any case they should PAY for the privilege of being associated with what they consider a good cause (otherwise they have at the very least the benefit of free advertising). Apart from that, the easy access that promoters or NGO's and Celebrities get to politicians is cause for concern and another reason why Direct Democracy needs to be introduced as a safeguard to any potential abuses of power.

9 October 2017

As there probably was not hidden camera to tell us whether or not Rex Tillerson said that Trump is a moron we will never know the truth. But is the behaviour worth of a President of the USA?Marketwatch